a "small" suggestion

[Curufin]

I also might argue that weapons in the +2 base range probably couldn't do vorpal, as the concept of vorpal is a very surgical "get around/between the armour" sort of hit, not just straight power

Ooooohhhhhhh......nice one Bob. That is very true.

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

Eric: Yes there is a difference. there's a table in the rules of minimum and maximum lengths of weapons. it'd be pretty intuitive to figure out large/small from that

[WayneO42]

Base damage for weapons will remain at 1. If you want to increase the damage, then you need to take a discipline to do so.

If you feel you are not true to the spirit of your character unless you are wielding a 6 foot sword or a thirty pound hammer think about this: Would your character really use that weapon? The phys rep is supposed to be a safe representation of the real thing. I know we can never add the weight of a real hammer or two-hander for safety reasons, but then again, you aren't as strong as your character, so that should balance out. Its the FH philosophy that the advantages and disadvantages of the weapon are built into the phys-rep. So, if you do not feel effective with the weapon you are weilding, how would your character feel in a fight for his life? There is a reason there is alot of historical evidence for sword/short axe and shield use in war...IT IS EFFECTIVE. Large weapons had a very specific purpose and those weilding them on the battlefield had a very specific job to do. The same can be said for those weilding large weapons at FH. If you wield a spear or pole-arm, fight from behind a shield wall. If you fight with a two-handed sword, fight with a shield mate. If you want to do more damage, train in a discipline devoted to your weapon (Knight, Pikeman, etc)

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

The base damage thing is fine with me either way. But,

Its the FH philosophy that the advantages and disadvantages of the weapon are built into the phys-rep

There isn't an advantage to using anything other than a sword really. Using a heavy-headed weapon/physrep causes you to fight slower, but i use it because i think it would have been the preferred weapon choice of my dwarven character (who COULD use it very effectively in that world). And it doesn't take a 6 foot weapon to slow you down OOG. As i mentioned, I uses relatively smaller axes, and I'm still not 1/4 the fighter I am with johnny-short-sword. The point of different weapons is they do different types and amounts of damage in real life. Some swing slower but hit harder, some are fast but dont do as much damage. some do damage from a massive blow even if a parry is attempted. I agree that most infantrymen used shortswords because of their effectiveness in close-quarter battle, and that other weapons "had their specific purposes" but those types of situations never present themselves in an FH battle, and if they did, then the case for more base damage becomes all the more relavant. This leads everyone to want to use a shortsword and a shield (as ryan said). which is boring.

Again, it's not a big deal that you don't want to modify the base damage of any weapon, but I too think it would be cool if there was a way to encourage seeing a variety of weapons out there.

[Peace420]

They have done that to a point, pikemen get a bonus with a spear type weapon, knights get a bonus with a bladed weapon, undead hunter gets a bonus with a headed weapon(although I think it should be blunt weapons), and one of the savage disciplines gets a bonus with headed weapons as well.

While it is true that different types of weapons do differing things if they try and represent that with rules and bonuses to weapon types then you end up with balance issues as well as unneeded complications. And while there are weapon length charts in the book they really are just leftover from their original CARPS rules, you'll notice that nowhere in the rules does it differentiate between short, long, bastard or 2 handed swords.

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

Regarding the non-distinction of weapon types: right, I was just saying that there is at least a start there -- there are mins and maxes for physreps and that table could be modified.

Regarding the complication of rules, I dont think it's complicated at all, because there's nothing to think about in-game. A character selects his/her weapon and knows the damage ahead of time and then just calls it out in game -- the attacked person then just deducts whatever the number is -- not any more complicated than things are now. I was unaware of the weapon/discipline advantages you spoke of, and am going to try to learn more about that. And again, as long as you give the bonuses to weapons but impose restrictions on them (like a +2 base weapon must be used two handed and no shield... +2 weapons cannot do vorpal, +2 weapon x can't be used by elves cuz it's too damn heavy) I think a nice balance can be created and it encourages diversity of the FH arsenal.

The only way a rule is complicated is if a lot of thought has to be done in game, and on the fly, (like what the hell happens in a pit trap ), or if the rule is open-ended.

[dier_cire]

restrictions are complex by nature. Just the nature of the beast.

At any rate, the issue becomes this. If you give things a +1 damage, you will end up with a bunch of min length 'large' weapons used as secondary weapons in certain situations. That's exactly what happened in Carps. Not really worth the effort.

[Curufin]

+2 weapons cannot do vorpal, +2 weapon x can't be used by elves cuz it's too damn heavy).

Hey.......

And Eric if that is what will happen, that is fine with me. 70" (almost 6 ft) minimum for two handed is also cool. If people want to carry that on their backs as a back up, more power to them. That is a very large weapon to be carring about with you for the 'just in case' scenario.

Bob, just for reference, the largest sword that we made is 58" long.

[GM_Chris]

WELLLLLLLL

Mr wacky Chris has a suggestion

ready for this one

Ok

It is good

Knight adjust plus 1 damage to plus one damage using 2 handed sword only

Undead Slayer adjust plus 1 damage using 2 handed hammer only

Pikeman uses a pike already there

Beast hunter uses a spear already there

Ax master super disciple Plus 1 damage using a 2 handed ax.

Thoughts

Chris

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

$hit yea jimmy, i love it! encourages (almost demands) variety, and evens things out a bit. Nice.

[dier_cire]

And Ka becomes more powerful by that change.

Basically, there's no need to be a knight anymore as the bonuses aren't good enough. Man-at-arms has more defensive bonuses and 3 damage with a weapon you can't hit anyone with is useless. Again, you still have to define a two handed weapon and whether you can use a shield with it. Ultimately, a change that large impacts every discipline, and they'd all need to be looked at for new uberness (since you effectively knock damage down to 2 as there is little fear of large weapons). But my guess is man at arms and druid would become way powerful.

[Bob-Z (kabre)]

How does ka become more powerful by that again? And I'd think that if you're using a two-handed weapon, you've run out of hands to be also using a shield.

[McEwan]

Chris,

A question, for clarity

Do you mean that as a knight one would recieve an additional +1 when useing a two-handed sword and no shield (ie 1 base damage, +1 for bladed weapon, +1 for Rage, then +1 for T-H sword =4 damage ), or that the +1 for T-H sword would replace the fourth lvl knight disiplane?

Also, if the latter is the case would the Undead Hunter's weapon of choose(sp) be replaced from headed weapon (hammer, axe, mace) to hammers only?

[Curufin]

No, Chis is not saying that it would be yet another +1. He is saying that it would be instead of. So a 4th Level Knight would HAVE TO swing a 2-handed sword to get the +1 bladed bonus from the 4th level knight ability.

[Wyrmwrath]

These responses are meant to be clinical, and contain no sting in spite of how they might read. It’s late and I wanted to finish and didn’t take the time to Todd-filter them:

Rules governing what is a large weapon are already in the rules, look under phys per construction and racial sizes.

The advantage to the weapon is reach when fighting in a line.

IF Wayne means that is what the advantage is supposed to be in FH, I can see. That is not the only advantage that a real weapon would have, they were also use for the much greater power and damage dealing potential. However simulating that in the FH system would be tricky without changes to the basic guidelines the rules writing team lives by.

Again, you still have to define a two handed weapon and whether you can use a shield with it

Two-handed weapons BY DEFINITION deny the use of a shield. That is why they are called two-handed weapons as opposed to two-handed-unless-its-made-of-foam-and-light-enough-to-use-with-a-larp-shield weapons

weapons in the +2 base range probably couldn't do vorpal, as the concept of vorpal is a very surgical "get around/between the armor" sort of hit, not just straight power

Anyone that thinks a two handed weapon can’t be used "surgically" and therefore not a valid vorpal candidate has seen to many movies. The nodachi was a two handed version of the Katana that was used to great effect by the bodyguards of certain shoguns, and halberds are designed with armor avoidance in mind. The axe on them is superfluous unless the target is unarmored due to lack of cutting power of such a light axe. I will grant the skill of the user must be significant, and the users tended to be strong like power lifters to move the weapon with speed, but unless the weapon is cousin to the kopesh or mainly a slashing weapon, vorpal attacks are appropriate.

and one of the savage disciplines gets a bonus with headed weapons as well

Actually they get no bonus, crush just requires a blunt weapon. As an aside, I didn’t look it up but I hope vorpal requires an edged weapon, preferable and logically a sword.


Not that it matters for the thread...but by standard definition, headed weapons are thought of to be maces, chainless morning stars, hammers and metal shod clubs...HAFTED weapons refer to polearms and spears typically


On a real dark-ages European battlefield, two opponents, one armed with a standard heater shield and arming sword and the other with a claymore will do roughly equal damage to each other if equally skilled. The shield user will move cautiously and try to get inside the weapon reach of the opponent, while the claymore user will rely on the power of his weapon to tear through the parries and shield(unless it is superbly crafted metal shield). The claymore wielder will likely have few true chances to do damage, but the damage will be significant, and he will tire faster. The sword and board fighter will have more chances to score a hit but they will each be less critical but will accumulate due to blood loss, and he will tire less quickly.

Bob, keep in mind, the PCs in FH are not militia, they aren’t regular soldiers; they are all traveling adventurers. They would therefore, likely, carry the armament that would be most effective the largest percentage of melee conflicts they are likely to encounter...that means shield and one-handed weapon for 90% of them. Sword or mace is irrelevant as long as it can be used one handed.


I for one would like to see weapons do damage based on what they are, but I like more realistic systems and do not believe FH NEEDS such a change. I think the best would be a discipline dubbed shock trooper (since that is mainly what troops using large non pole mounted weapons were for) or berserker; that gets a bonus with two-handed weapons. I think it’s a better fit with FH standards and philosophy.